[OLPC Security] Bitfrost and dual-boot

[C. Scott Ananian]

On 5/30/08, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I can't imagine that a contract would mention it.

It does.  The Windows-only trials are "phase I", and the dual-boot
"phase II" is explicitly spelled out, with transition criteria to move
to phase II related to the completion of OFW2.  We raised questions
about the contract language during the last all-hands meeting, and
were assured that it was closely examined in response.  I'm not a
lawyer, and haven't seen the language in any case, so I can't say
more.  But the parties involved were not naive.

In any case, the best response is clear: continue to work on the Linux
software stack and ensure that it is simply better than the Windows
alternative.  I've heard a lot of sturm und drang, but am saddened
that I haven't seen much help from those shouting in actually making
Sugar/Linux more competitive:
  http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/5452
  http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/5451
(as well as the task lists I've previously posted at:
  http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/014539.html (end of message)
  http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-May/0136 )

  --scott

-- 
                         ( http://cscott.net/ )